Pages

Friday, March 11, 2016

A powerful OT foreshadowing of the Papacy.

A friend of mine pointed out an amazing Old Testament foreshadowing of the Papacy that I'd like to share (and I think it's as important as Isaiah 22:22-23). The passage comes from the conclusion of Genesis, where the Patriarch Jacob (later renamed "Israel," Gen 32:28) was on his deathbed and giving each of his 12 sons (the Twelve Tribes of Israel) a specific blessing. When it came to his son Judah (Genesis 49:8-12), this is part of what Israel said to him:

Judah, your brothers shall praise you; your father's sons shall bow down before you. The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.

Here Jacob (Father Israel) predicts that the Tribe of Judah would one day come to lead the Twelve Tribes of Israel. As you can probably guess, a Catholic should see a parallel here for the Papal Office, with Peter being one of the Twelve Apostles being selected to be the leader of the other Apostles.

Some might object that if an OT image is not explicitly called out in the New Testament, then the OT image cannot really be said to be a prefigurment/prophecy. But this "rule" simply isn't valid, for the Early Church Fathers were steeped in OT typology, and even though texts such as Genesis 3:15 are never directly quoted in the New Testament, nobody would deny this text is the Proto-Evangelium (i.e. First Gospel). And given that the Twelve Apostles are most certainly premised on the prefigurement of the Twelve Tribes (Matt 19:28; Rev 21:12-14), the notion that there would be other prefigurments is not at all a stretch.

Another parallel to note is that even after the united 12 Tribes later fell into sin, idolatry, and broke into two kingdoms (the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah), it was clear that God's favor and chosen kingly lineage still remained with Judah (Micah 5:2; Rev 5:5). From this analogy we can gather that even if a Pope were to fall into sin, this in no way entails the Papacy somehow loses it's authority or that schism is ever justified. It was no accident that Saint Paul told the Holy Roman Church, "The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet." (Rom 16:20; cf Gen 3:15)

8 comments:

>>Judah, your brothers shall praise you; your father's sons shall bow down before you. The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples. (Genesis 49:8-12)<<

Nick: Here Jacob (Father Israel) predicts that the Tribe of Judah would one day come to lead the Twelve Tribes of Israel. As you can probably guess, a Catholic should see a parallel here for the Papal Office, with Peter being one of the Twelve Apostles being selected to be the leader of the other Apostles.

Um, sorry, Nick. I'm not *feeling* this one. (And as this is coming from one who is over-the-top into OT typology, that is saying something.)

What you're doing is reading the papacy back into the prophecy. That ought to be transparent to anyone, even those who might otherwise believe in the papacy as a divine institution. Perhaps there are other ways to prove the papacy. This prophecy from Genesis, however, surely isn't one of them.

What the prophecy is about is Jesus. He is the lion from the tribe of Judah who is true Israel. Jesus' calling of the twelve is clearly intended to show that Jesus was consciously redefining Israel in terms of himself and his church. No two ways about that. But to see here also a "Papal Office" is, well, seeing things.

In light of New Testament revelation, to what or to whom do the words "you" (singular) and "his" and "him" refer? The ultimate reference is to one person descended from Judah. That person is Jesus, not Peter and his alleged "successors" throughout the church age.

In fact, to apply this passage to anyone but Jesus is to risk turning it into a false prophecy. That is in fact what you are doing. And we know scripture has a lot to say about those claiming to be Jesus or claiming that someone else is. What you're doing is tantamount to saying the popes are essentially Jesus still on earth. Those who utter false prophecy can rightly be called false prophets. What you're saying seems to fit the bill.

I did not confuse the "Lion of Judah" with the "Tribe of Judah". That seems to be what you are doing. The 12 Apostles-Tribes parallel is not my invention, nor is it a stretch.

Furthermore, there's no reason why there cannot be a 'both-and' application to a given prophecy/typology. In this case, my argument isn't harmed by saying Jesus also fulfills this in His own way.

At the very least, what the Judah situation shows is that even if there is a group of leaders there can still be a head of that group. Judah being chosen to hold on until the Jesus comes has a clear analogy to the Roman Church holding on until Jesus comes (again).

Even granting the "both-and" possibility, where's your actual evidence beyond mere assertion that the papacy is in view in that particular prophecy? The twelve tribes = the twelve apostles, sure. But to go further to the papacy seems like an unwarranted stretch.

Maybe you could explain more how the papacy is being read **out** of the text and not back **into** it.

Nick, thank you for this bit of eisegesis. Like I said, since you can't read the papacy out of the text, you instead read it back into the text.

>>The Protestant narrative doesn't really have much to say given that they have no actual ecclesiology in any form,<<

That's news to me. Explain….

>>...especially given they hold the church is invisible and every man for himself.<<

Um, no. The church is both visible and invisible, not only invisible. Salvation is both corporate and individual, not only individual.

So given your misapplication of the RP, your misrepresentation of your own tradition (as EJ has clearly shown), your falsely dichotomous characterization of Protestant ecclesiology and soteriology, you show yourself to be, once gain, unqualified to comment on either your own tradition or ours. But it's your blog, so knock yourself out…

The Bible explicitly says Peter is "Protos" (Matthew 10:2), namely, "chief". The Bible says the Apostles ordained bishops, and that these bishops were to ordain successors as well. These proofs are more than enough to make a good case for the typological argument I've made. Unless you can show that Peter was not special among the Apostles and that bishops were not supposed to ordain successors, you have nothing against my claim.

(2) Protestantism does not have any ecclesiology. It is a 'non-essential' in Protestantism. There are various conflicting structures of Church leadership in Protestantism, ranging from very formal to very informal. In fact, there's no reason a Protestant cannot self-ordain himself, especially given that most denominations began in that very manner.

(3) The "church" in Protestantism is not "visible" in any objective sense. The key proof of this is that you cannot point to any *specific* denomination and say that is the true Church. Many Protestants will even say that no denomination has all things right. Unless you can give a specific denomination that is the true Church, you cannot say there is a "visible Church" at all. If the Anglicans are as true as the Baptists and/or the Presbyterians, then the "visible church" is a meaningless concept.

The part about when you read the papacy back into the text. In other words, you start with the assumption that the papacy is a God-ordained institution. Then you look for evidence for this in scripture. In the OT you are looking for antecedents. But your starting point isn't the text itself, but rather the Institution. That's the very definition of eisegesis.

Nick>>(a) Twelve Tribes = Twelve Apostles<< I agree that Jesus called 12 Apostles in order to signify that he was redefining Israel.

Nick>>(b) One Tribe Rules = One Apostle Rules<< This is laughable. There is no evidence that the entire tribe of Judah ruled all other tribes, nor any evidence that Peter ruled the other apostles. If anything, we see Peter submitting to the authority of James at the Jerusalem council and Paul showing more reverential submission to the Jewish High Priest (see Acts 23: 1-5) than he ever did to Peter, showing that Paul did not regard Peter as his high priest, Pontiff, pope, or superior. Even Peter himself refers to himself as a "fellow elder," and in no way, shape or form can this be explained away as mere "humility." Peter simply didn't think of himself as having authority over other apostles.

Nick>>(c) Judah is head = Peter is head << The scepter, which signifies ruling authority, does belong to the lineage of Judah. But there is no evidence that Jesus passed that scepter on to Peter. The church has a single head (Christ). Peter is a different body part.

Nick>>(d) Judah has lineage = Peter has successors << Only in Romanism does Peter have "successors" in the sense of a single bishop who holds his same authority. **Nothing** in scripture even hints at this.

Nick>>(e) until messiah comes = until messiah comes<< And this is the key to the text. It is Messianic, not Petrine. It looks forward to Jesus, not the papacy.

Um, no. It says he was "protos," which means "first." The key to understanding that word is Matthean context. Matthew is clear that the "first" will be "last." Applying that monicker to Peter gives us a clue as to how Peter is going to end up by the end of the story. The last we hear the name of Peter, he is "weeping bitterly." When we get to chapter 28, Peter's name disappears from the post Resurrection narrative entirely. He is just one of the eleven and is strongly associated with some that doubted. Is that the complete picture of Peter? Of course not. But it is Matthew's picture, and it gives us a strong clue as to what Matthew intended to convey by calling Peter "first."

>>The Bible says the Apostles ordained bishops,<<

Um, no. It says they appointed elders and overseers, which are the same office. The words are used interchangeably. The concept of a ruling overseer or monarchical bishop is a post-NT "development."

Nick >>These proofs are more than enough to make a good case for the typological argument I've made. <<

Pope Leo XIII - Pray for us!

"Most desirable is it that the whole of Theology should be animated by the use of the Word of God. This is what the Fathers and great theologians of all ages have desired to practice. It was chiefly out of the Sacred Writings that they endeavoured to establish the Articles of Faith, and it was in them, together with divine Tradition, that they found the refutation of heretical error and the reasonableness of the truths of Catholicism."